the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
Chiming in as a silly little grad student applying natural language processing in my research... :
Yup. The author references the Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) program, which pretty much does exactly that. It's got hundreds of different "linguistic categories" that you can very easily and quickly scan for. Each linguistic category, or "dictionary", is a list of words that are said to reflect a different topic, idea, feeling, etc., and the program will tell you how many words in each text fit into different categories.
If you scroll down to Table 2 on Page 12 of this document, you can see some of their categories and a few example words for each one. You can also make your own "dictionaries", which I think this dude also did. They have a demo on the LIWC website that you can cry, and you will almost immediately see how limited this process actually is.
In research on natural language, like studies that scrape and analyze posts online, it's a hugely popular method for doing the laziest and easiest topic modelling or semantic analysis possible (i.e., looking for themes or concepts that people or talking about, or how they are expressing emotions in text). Like you point out, it's totally devoid of context, so it's validity doesn't extend much beyond "they are using XYZ words this often".
So what you're saying is that now we're being watched we should make an effort to use as many violent words as possible, ie. instead of writing "I would really like a cookie" we should write "I could kill for a cookie"?
I think we owe it to Richard to be good little lab rats and give him some of that violent extremism he's looking for.
Boy howdy it's a scorcher out there, I would VIOLENTLY DISEMBOWEL and DECAPITATE someone for a lemonade today
:biden-the-thing: Hmm, the leftists are talking about violence. Could they be discussing everyday violence directly or indirectly effected by the state? :biden-rember: No, it's the leftists who are violent!
I hadn't considered that we're "violent" partly because we talk about state and institutional violence a lot and that makes this even funnier.
It's like the liberal hand wringing of "talking about racism keeps racism alive" but computerized :policing-brain:
keep this typo because the methodological and philosophical faults in this study make me want to cry
LOL